Noah's Flood - Local or Global?

hey SoK, you're pretty quick to throw out sweeping denials of my scientific accuracy, but can you show me some solid facts, scientific studies, or reliable info that proves me wrong? By "accepted as probable" I meant within the creationist community. I'm well aware that the general scientific community, and most non-Christians will never believe any of this anyway.

Jetsons_Funny_Twin:
For decades many creationist proposed that before the Flood there was a giant "water canopy" which surrounded the Earth, and this was the "firmament" spoken of in the opening chapters of Genesis. This was said to have been the source for most of the water in the Flood. In recent years however, most creationist have abandoned the theory, after studies showed that such a canopy most likely couldn't have held much water and would have had a neglible effect on the Flood.

 

Blackjebus, what kind of proof could do that? I can't think of a single thing. It's impossible

He was asking a hypothetical question which you completely failed to answer, did you notice?

But okay, you ask "what kind of proof". Well lets say God himself appeared at the foot of your bed saying so, this seeming to be the only kind of "evidence" you guys listen to.

the thing I don't understand is that I've never had to argue about this in Europe, I've never met a "creationist", it seems to solely be a product of American Christian fundamentalism.

So true! The insanity of literal interpretation of religious parable seems localized to North America.

What these people do not understand is that religion is parable, fiction, story, moral tale. As mentioned before.

Being a decendant of Vikings myself, I know exactly how "religious" the Viking religious rituals were. Exactly nought. The "Midvinterblot" (which y'all stole and turned into Christmas) was a "religious" event, i.e. the "official reason" was some "religious" thing. Did the Vikings give a flying f#¤()/&#¤? No. There was a recurring party. So party. End of story.

Like I said a few posts up, our beliefs were widely held until a few centeries ago, when uniformitarian thinking began to infest every field of science

You mean when people started to think, period?

/Z

 

"The insanity of literal interpretation of religious parable seems localized to North America."

Don't forget the middle east.

 

Not all Americans are fundamentalists you know.

 

Let's say, hypothetically, that some enormous piece of evidence shows that the story of Noah's flood is entirely fiction, beyond argument. Now, I have to ask: is the deeper religious meaning of the story diminished in any way, shape, or form? Does this automatically make every event in the Bible untrue? I think the literalists are missing the puropse of religious scripture.

If the Bible is the word of God, I don't think he's trying to give us a science lesson. Saying that Noah's flood is God trying to teach us scientific history is like saying when Jesus spoke about a tiny mustard seed growing into a giant shrub, he was trying to teach his disciples how to garden.

Ok lets say God Himself told me that the Flood never occured and that is was just a morality tale. I would be completely blown away and confused, because I HONESTLY see the scientific evidence which points to a global Flood. God isn't trying to give a science lesson. He shaped history into a lesson to future generations to not become immoral like the pre-Flood world. Unfortunately we haven't listened very closely.

And I personally am not a "fundamentalist." I'm Catholic and have come to all these beliefs on my own. The Church has no official teaching on the historical accuracy of Genesis. I believe these things because they are scientifically accurate.

 

The water canopy did exist, but God broke it and the weather suddenly changed, causing extreme temperture in winter.

Before then 30 below Celsius never existed, interesting isn't it.

There were the four seasons but not like we have them today.

The water came from above and below, this planet has an amazing amount of H20 on it, not all of was intended to be here as we see it today. There are some places in the ocean that go down for miles and miles full of water.

 

And I personally am not a "fundamentalist."
Blackjebus, what kind of proof could do that? I can't think of a single thing. It's impossible

That my friend is the definition of fundamentalism: extremist devotion to literal interpretation of holy texts, refusal to accept any other truth.

What I find disturbing is that you keep saying that you and your fellow extremists have offered irrefutible "proof", when all you've done is made ludicrous statements (very realistic I must say: demons, water canopys, pretty rainbows, people who live for 960years, global floods,a history which only starts after 2000BC. My, what a nice fantasy! populated by pixies, and hobbits, and Santa Claus...)

However, when people who've dedicated their life to scientific studies and measurements try to debate this point, you basically tell them that their entire work was wrong, you have the guts to say that THEY were all wrong, simply because you believe a book which is 2000 years old. (by the way, do you still believe the world is flat? Or that trepanation is a good cure for illness? Because thats what people believed 2000years ago)

To say that my field of interest is a waste of time, that the I'm studying things which don't exist is: shocking, insulting, frightening and demonstrates an alarming lack of education, if not an alarming sign of madness.


tale my Goliath analogy. the reason I asked you which of the two interpretations was more realistic (Goliath as a big giant or Goliath as a huge army), is because I personally have studied the historical records of the time, which tell of Davids great victory against the phillistines. There is however, no mention of giants.

Thats what this boils down to: the only evidence of your theories lies in one single religious text which contradicts hstorical records of the same period. AND FOR GOOD REASON, since as I've said before, the Bible is a combination of exagerations of hebrew history and made up morality tales.

Personally i find it offensive, blasphemous, that you claim to be more righteous than the rest of the world, that you refuse to look at the true world God created, devoid of giants, demons and canopies, and instead choose to follow one single ancient book which contradicts the nature of our incredible universe. If the Bible was true, it would cheapen God's work, giving him human weaknesses (such as choosing one religion over another, when he created us all equal), and limiting his vast and complex work which took billions upon billions of years, which covers an infinite expanse, to just a few thousand years with natural mechanisms straight from a child's imagination.

Again, if you believe that, I say THAT is true blasphemy.

 

ryan123450

Like I said a few posts up, our beliefs were widely held until a few centeries ago, when uniformitarian thinking began to infest every field of science.

Actually, it was the apparent reality which caused the shift from Flood to the current geology. Geologists had to admit that there was no evidence for, but masses of evidence agains, the idea that one global flood deposited the whole geologic record.

 

Well put! Such comments do nothing to advance the discussion. Keep to the issues and avoid the insults.

Luckily for the fundamentals, he doesn't.

/Z

 

Blue_Jedi33

The water canopy did exist, but God broke it and the weather suddenly changed, causing extreme temperture in winter.

Remember what Brooks said about a priori assumptions. Theyre bad, m'kay? Please read the AiG list of arguments creationists should not use.

Before then 30 below Celsius never existed, interesting isn't it.

Proof? Evidence?

There were the four seasons but not like we have them today.

Do tell.

Problems with the Flood

"Any ongoing effort to join the GUC to creationist geology must by definition explain how it can be harmonized globally. If a given model fails at the NGOMB, it has failed. If these efforts fail (and we believe they have) the model(s) must be abandoned or modified! Failure to discard bad ideas will only lead to greater confusion in creation science."
Trueorigins says they can't explain the Geologic record with a Flood

 

Vagrant,

"We fear that the first steps of this path may be taken anew in the twentieth century by seeking to harmonize the Bible with the GUC. It is our opinion that a viable creationist stratigraphy requires adherence to Scripture and eschews modification of a biblical worldview to accommodate uniformitarianism."


That is what the authors of that article wrote, Vagrant.

If you're going to use creationists material please try to portray their words in context, and do not misrepresent their writings.



"We assert that the Bible teaches that the global Flood and its associated events produced the greatest levels of geologic energy (i.e., erosion, sediment transport, deposition, new sediment production, volcanism, tectonism, turbidites, extra-terrestrial impacts, sea-level changes, etc.) ever experienced by the planet, and resulted in the formation of most of the igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks found in the crust during and shortly after the Flood (Reed, Froede, and Bennett, 1996). These same crustal features have been reinterpreted by evolutionists as the GUC. A close examination of the naturalist worldview reveals that the basis for doing so is derived from non-scientific considerations, although presented as science. The evidence for the GUC is considered powerful by many creationists, and some continue to attempt reconciliation between the GUC and the biblical record. We believe that this approach causes confusion, and remains undefined and inconsistent in its use within creation geology."

And...

"...We fear an epistemological imbalance between Scripture and uniformitarian geology. Contrary to modern positivism, we assert that biblical revelation is primary and superior to any naturalist interpretation of history."

 

I am amazed that people like you guys, fundamentalists, who actually believe this crap, exists.

I'm appauled and ashamed of the human race's apparent boundless stupidity!

Then again, Einstein said that the two most common elements in the universe are Hyrdogen and Stupidity.

/Z

 

I would love the opportunity to actually get into the facts regarding what is known and what is assumption in geology, what history demonstrates, and what creatioists actually postulate...however all the one-line/ two-line insults hinder any real chance for any actual intellectual discussion on the matter.

We might ask where all the humans are? If human beings have lived unencumbered for the last 100,000 years...where is the staggering population which should only allow for standing room only?

Do the math.



EDIT:

There are numerous explorations of the subject from problematica archaeologically unearthed, to investigating assumptionsused in dating techniques, C 14, C 12, etc., to the age of the Earth's magnetic fields, to the problems with a uniformitarian approach to stratigraphy, to the postulation of the fossil distribution, radiohalos, receding moon formulations, shrinkage of sun, rapid development of petroleum, necessary conditions of fossilization, etc...

 

I'd consider 6 billion people to be pretty staggering, particularly when one considers that population pretty much doubled in the last 50 years.

 

Multiply it out for a period over 100,000 years.

Be back later or tomorrow to see what figures you arrived at.

 

I am baffled at the amazing waste of time that this discussions is. Do you think that the real intent of the Bible is to give a scientific account of the world?

What kind of faith on the Bible is this, that to believe the moral teachings therein, every word needs to be taken literally?

Real Christians should be teaching the words and lessons of Chirst, not trying to prove that every story in the Bible is concrete and real.

I know several Christians that think the stories in the Bible are not real accounts, but fabled versions of true events. The thought that most of the stories in the Old Testament are real seem ludicrous to them. That makes them less Christians? Of course not. It just makes their faith more genuine, because they don't need literal interpretations of fables to support their faith.

 

Exactly Ki-Adi Bundi. The bible's purpose is for moral and philosophical teachings and I accept it as such, as do most people. In fact, I have a copy of the Bible sitting on my shelf, alongside the Coran, a book about Zoroastrianism, another one regarding hinduism and a book by the Dalai Lama.

Oh and _Darth Brooks_, in case you hadn't noticed...people die.

 

"I am baffled at the amazing waste of time that this discussions is."

Then why bother to come in with distractive comments which added nothing to the discussion?



"Do you think that the real intent of the Bible is to give a scientific account of the world?"

It's an historical chronicle.

"What kind of faith on the Bible is this, that to believe the moral teachings therein, every word needs to be taken literally?"

We would need to discuss the form of Hebrew used, as that is peritenent to the poetical versus literal sections of the Bible.

"Real Christians should be teaching the words and lessons of Chirst, not trying to prove that every story in the Bible is concrete and real."

Christ spoke on the Flood. He was a real Christian. So did authors of the Epistles (New Testament writings, in case you don't know.)

I do not appreciate the implication that those who accept the Biblical chronology are not "Real Christians."

The authors of the Epistles warned of a day in which men would consider the Flood, particularly believers. They offered a strict prophetic warning. Apparently, the day is here.

 

Incidentally, Christ was not a Christian...

Also, the fact that Christ spoke on the flood has nothing to do with whether or not the flood took place. Its point is valid regardless of its reality.

 

Sidious,

"Oh and _Darth Brooks_, in case you hadn't noticed...people die."

You consider this viable in a serious discussion? It seems merely an untenable way to side step the population issue. I am not impressed.


Christ was the ideal Christian, the Christian paragon, since the word "Christian" means approximately "little Christ." or emulators of Christ. He is the example.

I have no idea what your comment was supposed to indicate.


That Christ and the Christian Fathers spoke on the literalness of the Flood is obviously important, the implications being somewhat obvious in relation to comments made in this thread recently.

Gotta go. BBL.

 

Brooks, the doubling in 50 years figure is hardly accurate to the full extent of human history.

If it were, following the Biblical account, the population of the Earth should be 1.4 x 10^45.


Doubling every hundred years still gives you a population in the quintillions(thats the word, right?).

Given that we know the population ahs doubled in the past 50 years, it only makes sense that the rate of growth is increasing and isn't flat.

Therefore your little math question is entirely moot.

To make another point the growth prior to the population explosion of the last century or two is a much lower, however it is also not a perfectly stable number. Tryign to predict a time of origin based on population growth is silly.

Furthermore, the difference in the two proposed models occurs in the earliest stages where creationism suggests a significantly higher rate of growth compared to the much slower one given by science.

 

My comment that people died was in answer to your ludicrous concept of 6 billion beings being too little. Until recently, more people died than were born, thus keeping population levels the same for thousands of years. The reason the population has risen so drastically over the last century is because improvement in health hygene and nourishment mean we don't die so young anymore. Just to give an example:

[image=http://plus.maths.org/issue17/news/popn/oldpop.gif]


No personal comments allowed. Christ was a Jew who formed a specific sect of politico-religious Judaism. To me he was a mix of Ghandi and Che Guevara (actually, come to think of it, John the Baptist was probably most like Che).

Christianity only appeared when the rather ambitious Paul(whom I see as Stalin to jesus' Lenin, basically, the bad guy) reorganised everything, decided that non-Jews should be allowed and wanted to turn it into a world religion. before that, it was but a Jewish sect.

 

Farraday,

Give us some figures using 2.75 involving 100,000 or more years. I used a 100,000 to be conservative.

If I use 2.5 for the last 4,500 years I arrive at our current population.

Now consider Lucy is said to be 2.8 million years old.


How is that "moot" Farraday?

It is unavoidable, even figuring a short lifespan.


Be back later to continue.

 

4,500 years?

Surely you're joking. Every creationist knows th earth was created at Noon Oct, 23 4004 BC.

And I'd like to see your math.

 

"Until recently, more people died than were born, thus keeping population levels the same for thousands of years."


And you called my comments "ludicrous," and referred to me as "dim witted"?